3 ms·

Mixing two parents genes randomly and then seeing what happens (ie, normal human reproduction) is also experimenting on a future human without their consent. A

Mixing two parents genes randomly and then seeing what happens (ie, normal human reproduction) is also experimenting on a future human without their consent. Applications of ideas around consent to human reproduction are confusing and self-contradictory at the best of times.

anon291 3y ago
Except they're not mixing two parents genes randomly. Moreover, we know for a fact that not receiving male genes or not receiving female genes is problematic (see Angelman and Prader-Willi syndrome... genes must be received from one man and one woman, and women cannot produce male haploid genes and vice versa). In general, the only thing humans have tried is randomly mixing a man and a woman's genes, not two random people.
- opprobium 3y ago
  Of course they are: The parent's genes are mixed randomly. Every child is the non-consenting participant in a randomized trial. That the structure of the experiment being run is standardized does nothing to change this fundamentally uncontrolled character. Which is ethically fine by me! I'm just pointing out that reproduction is one of the areas where the limitations of consent based bioethics are blindingly obvious.
  - anon291 3y ago
    My point is that the parents are a man and a woman and this is talking about potentially two men and two women. We know that if these things happen randomly (two genes inherited from one parent, even if from the other chromosome), that it causes severe developmental problems. The genes in sperm are physically different than those in eggs. It's called methylation and I gave you an example of a disease caused by it going wrong.
    - Teever 3y ago
      I wonder if the next step for this will be to develop techniques to modify the methylation of genes to make them compatible. At some point you're going to want this if you're trying to pick specific genes from people or if you're doing things like making people with dozens of parents.
    - opprobium 3y ago
      I never said anything about the likely safety of the technology, so I'm not sure what that has to do with it? The genetic mix from parents is randomized. Always. Both good and bad results are equally the result of a random process initiated by the parents. A combination of recessive genes to cause disease is not more or less random than a combination of healthy genes. The parents roll the dice, the child gets the result. In other words: The ethics can't proceed from first principles around consent to experimentation. It has to include, as you say, empirical questions about the technology in question. But that's a different sub-thread. If I had to say anything about that: I think this is one of those things that is just going to happen whether or not anyone likes it. The fact that it has already succeeded with mice + the massive applications... it's just going to get tried, it's just a matter of which country it happens in. The fact that it could potentially be used by same sex couples is a total side note to how strongly this will be pulled along by the same existing demands that drive IVF currently, the potential is just too powerful. So I imagine we're just going to see eventually.

anon291 3y ago

Except they're not mixing two parents genes randomly. Moreover, we know for a fact that not receiving male genes or not receiving female genes is problematic (see Angelman and Prader-Willi syndrome... genes must be received from one man and one woman, and women cannot produce male haploid genes and vice versa). In general, the only thing humans have tried is randomly mixing a man and a woman's genes, not two random people.

opprobium 3y ago
Of course they are: The parent's genes are mixed randomly. Every child is the non-consenting participant in a randomized trial. That the structure of the experiment being run is standardized does nothing to change this fundamentally uncontrolled character. Which is ethically fine by me! I'm just pointing out that reproduction is one of the areas where the limitations of consent based bioethics are blindingly obvious.
- anon291 3y ago
  My point is that the parents are a man and a woman and this is talking about potentially two men and two women. We know that if these things happen randomly (two genes inherited from one parent, even if from the other chromosome), that it causes severe developmental problems. The genes in sperm are physically different than those in eggs. It's called methylation and I gave you an example of a disease caused by it going wrong.
  - Teever 3y ago
    I wonder if the next step for this will be to develop techniques to modify the methylation of genes to make them compatible. At some point you're going to want this if you're trying to pick specific genes from people or if you're doing things like making people with dozens of parents.
  - opprobium 3y ago
    I never said anything about the likely safety of the technology, so I'm not sure what that has to do with it? The genetic mix from parents is randomized. Always. Both good and bad results are equally the result of a random process initiated by the parents. A combination of recessive genes to cause disease is not more or less random than a combination of healthy genes. The parents roll the dice, the child gets the result. In other words: The ethics can't proceed from first principles around consent to experimentation. It has to include, as you say, empirical questions about the technology in question. But that's a different sub-thread. If I had to say anything about that: I think this is one of those things that is just going to happen whether or not anyone likes it. The fact that it has already succeeded with mice + the massive applications... it's just going to get tried, it's just a matter of which country it happens in. The fact that it could potentially be used by same sex couples is a total side note to how strongly this will be pulled along by the same existing demands that drive IVF currently, the potential is just too powerful. So I imagine we're just going to see eventually.